Remove this Banner Ad

Religion Pell Guilty!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colonial
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

The "jury" ground of appeal has also now been clarified, the C/A having released the grounds of appeal:

There was a fundamental irregularity in the trial process, because the accused was not arraigned in the presence of the jury panel as required.
 
FredLeDeux said:
The "jury" ground of appeal has also now been clarified, the C/A having released the grounds of appeal:

There was a fundamental irregularity in the trial process, because the accused was not arraigned in the presence of the jury panel as required.
Click to expand...
An odd piece of incompetence considering the high profile nature of the trial.
 
Maggie5 said:
My understanding was private donors but have no idea who will pay for appeal. Legal Aid?

Walker isn't cheap either, read somewhere that he got over a million for the RC into Murray Darling.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that Richter/Shann and Walker/??? are both now "on tap" so to speak, rather than certainties in either case to do the actual appeal.
It's normal practice to have a back-up in case the other is unable to appear when the appeal comes around.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

FredLeDeux said:
The "jury" ground of appeal has also now been clarified, the C/A having released the grounds of appeal:

There was a fundamental irregularity in the trial process, because the accused was not arraigned in the presence of the jury panel as required.
Click to expand...
I could be getting this wrong but wasn’t Pell presented with the jury candidates to ensure that there was no conflict of interest?

Or am I confusing that with what is being alleged?
 
Tiges1229 said:
i think bringing them down when empty is to misleading, but thats just my opinion.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't be able to get the jury to rock up for duty on a Sunday, it's just a Monday to Friday gig so they could only organise that visit during the week.
 
Admiral Byng said:
It is common practice to bring a jury down to see a crime scene. So they can see the actual place, not be relying upon a built up a mental picture of it like you would get from reading a novel or hearing a description of it second hand.

I think this line of argument is clutching at straws.
Click to expand...
On the case where I sat as a jury member we were told not to go to the crime scene (Epping Road Sydney), to avoid it at all costs. We were warned that doing so could have us removed from the Jury panel. We were told to only focus on the evidence presented in court.
 
Strange Cat said:
I could be getting this wrong but wasn’t Pell presented with the jury candidates to ensure that there was no conflict of interest?

Or am I confusing that with what is being alleged?
Click to expand...
I don't know any more than is in the reported ground of appeal.

Pay me the wage** of a Supreme Court judge, and I'll do some research on it.


**$400,000 pa (actually $412,000, but a discount for cash).
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Richard Pryor said:
Yes, Current Archbishop of Melbourne said this in an interview; wealthy private individuals (and not the Melbourne Archdiocese).
Click to expand...
Must be starting to get a bit toey; 2 trials already, plus an appeal and possibly a re-trial to come will put a bit of a dent in any pocket.

Still, they can console themselves that they are getting closer to heaven every time they write another cheque:
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
 
Maggie5 said:
Things we don't know as the key witness statement is not public.

However I can see why the jury would have been taken there: to see if what access there was to the area, where the wine was kept, area/dimensions for example. Impossible to replicate and filming and video animation would be misleading and I agree with the Judge, could be misinterpreted as fact.
Click to expand...
Oh look, somebody just tried to open the door to the sacristy but it was locked. And there's the choirmaster rounding up all the choirboys. All this while the arch bishop is standing out front being reminded by his assistant not to rape all the children...
 
One of the original jurors got challenged on the case I was on, some young bloke wearing scruffy surf gear that looked like he'd been on the bongs.

I was the unlucky campaigner that called up as his replacement, I was spewing as I thought I was going to get out of it.

I made the mistake of being neatly dressed, I should've worn scruffy surf gear and smoked bongs beforehand as I might have been challenged as well.

Present Not Past said:
On the case where I sat as a jury member we were told not to go to the crime scene (Epping Road Sydney), to avoid it at all costs. We were warned that doing so could have us removed from the Jury panel. We were told to only focus on the evidence presented in court.
Click to expand...

We didn't get to visit the crime scene either on the case I was on, I don't think it would have made any difference to my decision if we'd visited it though.

What convinced me most to give a not guilty verdict was that the accused took the stand to deny the charges in a very honest, confident manner. Had he not done that like Pell did and stayed silent I wouldn't have been so inclined to go with the not guilty verdict.

The defence lawyer also ran rings around the prosecution lawyer who was hopeless and didn't present a good case at all, that also swayed my decision.
 
Plugger35 said:
One of the original jurors got challenged on the case I was on, some young bloke wearing scruffy surf gear that looked like he'd been on the bongs.

I was the unlucky campaigner that called up as his replacement, I was spewing as I thought I was going to get out of it.

I made the mistake of being neatly dressed, I should've worn scruffy surf gear and smoked bongs beforehand as I might have been challenged as well.



We didn't get to visit the crime scene either on the case I was on, I don't think it would have made any difference to my decision if we'd visited it though.

What convinced me most to give a not guilty verdict was that the accused took the stand to deny the charges in a very honest, confident manner. Had he not done that like Pell did and stayed silent I wouldn't have been so inclined to go with the not guilty verdict.

The defence lawyer also ran rings around the prosecution lawyer who was hopeless and didn't present a good case at all, that also swayed my decision.
Click to expand...
As soon as Pell opens his mouth people dislike him, he may be a considerate humane individual as Howard tell us he is, but you here him give evidence at RC and tv interviews and he does himself no favours
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Osho
    • Like
USA Daniel Penny Not Guilty
Replies
4
Views
705
Osho
Osho

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom